Session 4 March 2012

[SoCurious]

Richard, it sounds like you're legalistically nitpicking here.

Yes, Anart, I am. The original quote I was answering..

[ If it is true ] that the government has used every Americans birth certificate as collateral on the federal debt it would be outrageous and would mean that you don`t even "own" your children they do.

is not legally valid. It is an assumption based on the way the money system works.

I understand there is no real democracy anywhere hence the use of "" as in "democracy". Also I know the Fed does what it wants...it sneaks behind Congress...and all because the Secretary of the Treasury is always one of the bankers men. The US government is owned, no question. The people are not.

 

[SoCurious]

It might help you clarify your world-view just a little.

You're presuming knowledge of how I view the world? I'm trying to deal in realities. That I'm saying the government does not own the people, legally, in no way represents my jaundiced view of governments in general. The government can be directly compared to the Lizzies. Their methods of gaining the confidence of the people is pure trickery. The military is no longer run through conscription. The members have given up their free will by joining the military.

 

[anart]

The US government is owned, no question. The people are not.

What does that statement actually have to do with reality, though? It's a decent debate closure, but this forum isn't for debate. The reality is that the American people are very much owned, as are you. Illusions of freedom do not equate to freedom, Richard. You use the South African government as some sort of example of democracy when it's known as one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, with funds leaking out like water from a sieve, while the vast majority of the population lives in metal hut shanty towns with no running water or electricity.

It would really benefit you to take a look at reality and put less stock in theories and how things are 'by definition'.

 

[anart]

It might help you clarify your world-view just a little.

You're presuming knowledge of how I view the world?

It's quite obvious from your posts here how you view the world. You put more stock in your ideas of how things should be (all of which are built wholly on the information supplied to you by the powers that be) than you do in the reality on the ground and the human condition. That's not uncommon at all, but it's also not objective.

I'm trying to deal in realities.

Are you? Or are you trying to conform the world around your current definitions based on how you are told things are supposed to be? And, have you read Political Ponerology yet?

 

[Meager1]

My understanding is that Fed Reserve Notes (FRNs) are property of the Federal Reserve - a private bank/institution. FRNs are declared by the US gov to be legal tender. There is a growing movement of folks in the US to establish themselves as sovereigns under common law as opposed to UCC/maritime law.

Well apparently, this "private bank/institution" is owned by the "Sovereigns " of other countries.

Which makes all the US Presidents who are descendant from or related to the "Sovereigns" of other countries, nothing more then the operating agents in this country, to create more debt and enslave more people.

Well apparently, this "private bank/institution" is owned by the "Sovereigns " of other countries.

Which makes all the US Presidents who are descendant from or related to the "Sovereigns" of other countries, nothing more then the operating agents in this country, to create more debt and enslave more people for their sovereigns.

And yes, the governments adhere to Maritime law, because they can control that and make all the rules to suit themselves. They have moved us away from Common law, because they can not control that.
According to Maritime law we are all owned by the governing body that holds your birth certificate as a dummy corporation.
You are born a corporation..not a person, under that law you have no human rights. Interestingly, even the term "for sale" is derived from "for sail"..which meant merchandise ready to embark and be sold or traded.

 

[anart]

Just to clarify why I'm asking you if you've read Political Ponerology: if you read Political Ponerology and understand it, you will see, very clearly, who Jacob Zuma is and why he's in power, and you'll even see why Julius Malema rose to such national fame before being 'collared' by the larger psychopath (Zuma). It really will clarify your world view since it's also applicable to every other government on the planet at the current time.

 

[anart]

I just finished watching this video series and was truly ashamed at how much I didn`t know or understand, about how the "law" works, and that there are different forms of law for Sovereign peoples,, and for US citizens ( those tricked into giving up their sovereignty) for example.

Just a word of caution on these types of videos - they usually serve to get people all riled up without having any real effect at all. The reality is that it doesn't really matter what the law is - and it hasn't for a very long time. All that matters is what those in power can get away with, so I think it's important to bear that in mind when watching such videos in order to not get all worked up about what amounts to fiction. Just my take, of course.

 

[SoCurious]

Anart,

I'm busy with political ponerology. What ever gave you the impression I thought well of Zuma, or 90% of his cabinet for that matter? Malema displays every trait of a psychopath.

Even so, no matter how many psychopaths are in government, there are still controls in place that actually work giving some of the world's least educated people hope.

Is SA any more corrupt than any other country? I doubt it. It's just very visible thanks to a ton of factors such as factionalism, the opposition parties, and a press that is relatively, relatively, free to pursue their inquiries. As you see the visible corruption here it must be admitted that it occurs on the same or similar scale everywhere. Some countries are simply more practiced in the art of hiding their misdemeanours.

I have no faith in governments anywhere and this should put your mind at rest.

 

[anart]

Anart,

I'm busy with political ponerology. What ever gave you the impression I thought well of Zuma, or 90% of his cabinet for that matter? Malema displays every trait of a psychopath.

I never said you thought well of him, I said the book will explain him (you're doing the black and white thinking again).

Even so, no matter how many psychopaths are in government, there are still controls in place that actually work giving some of the world's least educated people hope.

I don't think that's at all the case and that you are living in an illusion if you think it is. How would you define hope? That maybe 35 years after apartheid, those living in the townships will finally have running water and electricity?

Is SA any more corrupt than any other country? I doubt it.

What does that matter? It's not a matter of more or less, it's a matter of seeing it as it is - not how you hope it is.

It's just very visible thanks to a ton of factors such as factionalism, the opposition parties, and a press that is relatively, relatively, free to pursue their inquiries. As you see the visible corruption here it must be admitted that it occurs on the same or similar scale everywhere. Some countries are simply more practiced in the art of hiding their misdemeanours.

Misdemeanors? What would you consider a felony? No, I don't think it has anything to do with the visibility of it in South Africa - it's not a matter of bad PR, Richard, it's about reality. Saying that other countries are the same doesn't negate what South Africa is. This applies to every country. In other words, you're trying to spin pretty reasoning around pathocracy and that never works.

I have no faith in governments anywhere and this should put your mind at rest.

My mind is not experiencing unrest. I am simply trying to point out flaws in your reasoning in order for you to take a look at yourself because your tendency to legalistically nitpick, to normalize pathological situations and to assume all is as the powers that be tell you it is cannot serve you well.

 

[SeekinTruth]

I just finished watching this video series and was truly ashamed at how much I didn`t know or understand, about how the "law" works, and that there are different forms of law for Sovereign peoples,, and for US citizens ( those tricked into giving up their sovereignty) for example.

Just a word of caution on these types of videos - they usually serve to get people all riled up without having any real effect at all. The reality is that it doesn't really matter what the law is - and it hasn't for a very long time. All that matters is what those in power can get away with, so I think it's important to bear that in mind when watching such videos in order to not get all worked up about what amounts to fiction. Just my take, of course.

FWIW, I agree completely. This has been apparent for a VERY long time.

 

[Renaissance]

I have no faith in governments anywhere and this should put your mind at rest.

Do you see any contradiction with what you say above and what you say here?:

Even so, no matter how many psychopaths are in government, there are still controls in place that actually work giving some of the world's least educated people hope.

What controls do you think work? If controls aren't based on understanding the character and influence of psychopaths then they'll be illusory protections. Politics and government are psychopathic systems, so I don't see where any real hope can exist there. Such hope seems more like the cognitive dissonance that is felt when hostage captors tell their victims they have a chance of surviving if they do xyz.

 

[RedFox]

What controls do you think work? If controls aren't based on understanding the character and influence of psychopaths then they'll be illusory protections. Politics and government are psychopathic systems, so I don't see where any real hope can exist there. Such hope seems more like the cognitive dissonance that is felt when hostage captors tell their victims they have a chance of surviving if they do xyz.

Yup, and if they show a drop of (manufactured) hope/humanity (through words - not actions) you get Stockholm syndrome. You desperately latch onto those words as the reality is too painful. Its like a wife beater turning round and being apologetic or saying 'I love you'....you just keep on taking the punishment because 'he loves you really'.
Obama's 'hope you can believe in' was a really good example.

Latching onto such things results in normalisation of pathology. It then gets displayed as defending (or legalistic nit picking) of the topic - be it politics/government or the husband who's beating you up.

Even so, no matter how many psychopaths are in government, there are still controls in place that actually work giving some of the world's least educated people hope.

The psychopaths set the rules/laws, invent/run the controls, control the media and public perception - they own, run and control the casino that is planet earth. House Always wins.

To go back to the wife beater analogy - you could say that the 'hope to the worlds least educated people' is the 'I love you and won't hit you again'...and all you are really agreeing with is that 'they fell down some stairs', because 'he's such and nice man and would never hurt anyone'.

The reality on the ground tells you another story. It can take a lot of courage to see when you are buying the psychopaths lies (hope), because you are then faced with the horror of the truth - and the horror that you've bought the lies.

 

[SoCurious]

Shane,

There is no contradiction. The constitution was drawn up by a mix of people of goodwill such as Nelson Mandela and those who mistrusted everyone else. The constitution and the constitutional court are the major controls that deny government the ability to run amok. This has been shown to work numerous times.

This does not make the government trustworthy it merely indicates that an effective (for now anyway) control exists.

While I believe in the ideal of consensual government I am fully aware that the strengths and weaknesses of government are mostly dictated by the governors. Billy Connelly once expressed the idea that people who wanted to be politicians should automatically be disqualified from public office. I agree. That power attracts the corrupt is beyond doubt.

Politics and government are psychopathic systems, so I don't see where any real hope can exist there.

Think further down the track. If the world were to topple every government, with what would you replace the current system? We would agree that it would be vital to limit the opportunities of psychopaths and the corrupt but we would still need institutions of one sort or another. Until such time as we're all STO every society will need some degree of control to stop the excesses of the insane (which to me pretty much describes society in general).

 

[agni]

Until such time as we're all STO every society will need some degree of control to stop the excesses of the insane (which to me pretty much describes society in general).

That's what Bush & Co said :)


I don't know man, but sounds awfully a lot similar to a concept of protecting people from themselves.

 

[kenlee]

Here the word revolution means Positive or negative or Nuetral?. the answer it emphatic . triple exclamation to negative reference gives me doubts.
What does it mean "they won't get the reaction they expect". - does it mean people doesn't bother to react to the brutal steps taken and silently line up to concentration camps they set up/eat the junk and get vaccines to become devloved /lineup to Denver OR people simply doesn't follow their rules to ignore the govt. entirely and fight back ?.

Dictionary meaning
Quote

a (1) : the action by a celestial body of going round in an orbit or elliptical course; also : apparent movement of such a body round the earth (2
a : a sudden, radical, or complete change
b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution> e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>

I was looking at definition #1: "the action by a celestial body of going round in an orbit or elliptical course" and what crossed my mind is that what may be coming up is a past event (the American Revolution) that may be cycling/repeating again and this past event is, perhaps, still real within the present in a kind of expanded present moment.

If there is really 'no time' and take as a working hypothesis that there is an expanded present moment, then the American Revolution event still exists in the present and perhaps some of it is still in a kind of a virtual state where there are still many open possibilities in this event that still have yet to be actualized. So possibly this revolution still lives in the present, even though it's origin is in the past but it's still happening now and still in the process of a transformation. With the objectivity that SOTT is putting out there consistently then perhaps this event still has a space to grow and transform itself in quality, intensify, and focus/direction due to this objectivity since the true nature of the problems we face is now being properly and accurately addressed and identified?

So it may be that if there is any continuation of the 'American revolution' then there may be a trend for people to more collectively act in favor of their destiny instead of just blind and mindless destruction (which the control system would expect). Might be wishful thinking though. So FWIW.

This reminds me of a story I once read in the book The Craft Of The Warrior by Robert Spencer. The book was a little too New Agey for me but he had a story in it that made a distinction between rebellion and revolt. I think that with a revolt there is a choice there or perhaps a revolt is the precursor to actually making a choice for either evolution (acting in accordance with conscience) or involution (entropy). But at least, I think, there may be is a possibility open for a choice to be made in one direction or the other with a revolt.

The story goes as follows:

Noom stormed into the house one afternoon after a confrontation with Boondoggle. When the screen door slammed, Derry looked up from her needlepoint to see what the ruckus was.

“That mule is just plain rebellious.”

“Oh, no child. Boondoggle is a different kind of mule entirely.”

Noom found a slice of pie in the pie safe and brought it to the table to eat. He began to eat and the old woman folded up her needlework, putting it away in her work basket.

“You see there are rebellin’ types of mules and then there are revoltin’ kinds of mules.”

“Well he’s ornery.”

“Oh no. That’s where you’re wrong ‘bout Boondoggle. Now most of your mules are rebellin’ types, but that’s where ol’ Boondoggle is different. Rebellin’ is not doin’ something that somebody wants you to do. That’s when you’re just a ornery cuss, not doin’ what somebody wants just to spite ‘em.”

“Well, that’s what he’s doing,” Noon complained between bites of pie.

“No, I think you’ve got it wrong. You see, when you don’t do what somebody wants you to do, that’s rebellin’. But if you do what you want to do that’s revoltin’, and Boondoggle is a revoltin’ kind of mule. He don’t care so much what you think is right as he does about what he thinks is right. Rebellin’ is when you want to hurt somebody and revoltin’ is when you want to help yourself. So in a funny way rebellin is when you say ‘no’ and revoltin’ is when you say ‘yes.’ Rebellin’ is when you fail at revoltin’. Mules are famous critters for rebellin’, but Boondoggle is famous because he’s a choice-makin mule.”

“Well, I don’t like him very much.”

“Oh, child. He always gets the upper hand because you’re always rebellin’ with him. Start revoltin’ just like him and you’ll get along fine.”

Long after Noon left Missouri he remembered the choice-makin’ mule with considerable fondness. For it was Boondoggle who taught him the subtle but life-shaping difference between rebellion and revolution. Taught him that rebellion kept one bound in conflict and revolution freed one of it.